#I CANNOT take Gender Criticals seriously. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ms-demeanor · 7 months

Note

i really liked OJST in the mid-2010s but i didn’t stop reading cause of the cuck comic - wasn’t there also a comic erika moen wrote about (functionally) harassing lesbians with her now-husband?

In the mid 2010s closet-keys criticized one of Erika Moen's early diary comics and described Erika Moen as "Reassuring a cishet partner that it’s totally okay to use hate speech towards wlw at Pride" and condoning the harassment and fetishization of lesbians because of a 2007 comic that she had made as part of a webcomic she had written about gender and her interactions with her queerness.

The hate speech in question is the partner asking "are you sure you want to hold my hand with all these dykes around?" while they are pretty clearly at a Dyke Day event during pride, and the reassurance that 'it's totally okay to use hate speech toward wlw' is Erika responding "sweetie, I'm proud to be with you."

The comic is still up with a disclaimer that it was written at a different time, and I know that's probably not going to fly with a lot of people but if you were a bi woman in the early to mid 2000s it was pretty common to use statements like "lol yeah i'm into women my boyfriend is fine with it as long as I take pictures" to diffuse the biphobia from straight people AND to say shit like "I'm not a party bi, I actually love pussy, thanks" to diffuse the biphobia from queer people. (if you were a bi guy in the early to mid 2000s i'm sorry and I'm sorry now because we got LUG but that mostly went away and you *still* have to deal with the "gay in waiting" bullshit).

That comic ends with Erika and her partner looking at a woman and saying "I'd totally do her" while the woman thinks "pigs" and if you think that means that they literally sat on the street and vocally commented about lesbians passing by them or that they condone harassing lesbians (in, I cannot stress this enough, a diary comic written by someone in their early twenties who is realizing they are occasionally interested in some men some of the time after identifying as a lesbian their whole life), then I'm gonna go ahead and recommend signing up for some variety or other of literary analysis class. Do we think that Erika is seriously implying that she is going to make her boyfriend gay if she fucks him in this comic from a year later?

If this comic bothers you and you see it as a straight-passing couple giving the go-ahead to harass lesbians, you do you, I'm not saying you have to read the comic or enjoy Erika Moen.

I am saying it's a bit of a stretch, though, and certainly the least charitable explanation possible, and that we should probably give people some space to say awkward things about their sexuality and to make missteps when discussing it in their early twenties and not call them lesbophobic fifteen years after the fact for a college comic.

Moen also gets called transphobic because she has described trans men as adorable/cute in a way that could be read as patronizing in one comic and because she made a comic about wearing a packer for fun and for sexual gratification with her cis male partner as a cis woman.

Appropriately, all of these things feel very "late twenty teens tumblr callout post."

If it bugs you, you don't have to read the comics but I've talked about Moen before and I've gotten the anons in my inbox calling me lesbophobic for recommending her comic when in 2007 she made a comic about catcalling lesbians and condoning street harassment.

Which is frustrating because Erika Moen writes a comic about sex toys that has incredible body and gender diversity and is interested in making sure that people of all sexualities are having safe, enjoyable sex and talking openly about it. This is Rebecca Sugar condones war crimes level discourse over a creator who makes a genuinely good comic and gets dismissed as cringe by people who hate open discussions of sex and gets dismissed as a bigot (in ways that I think are incredibly unfair given the vast majority of her work) among people who *claim* to love open discussions of sex but who *actually* love witch hunts.

565 notes · View notes

thatsonemorbidcorvid · 1 year

Text

“The women leaders in our study were considered too young or too old. They were too short or too tall, too pretty or too unattractive or too heavy. They had too much education or not enough or their degrees were not from the “right” schools. They suffered from disrespect and misperceptions due to race, color, or ethnicity. Whether they had children or were childless, the women were expected to work harder than men to prove their worth. Women were held back from leadership opportunities due to being single, married, or divorced. There was no personality trait sweet spot, as introverted women were not seen as leaders and extraverted women were viewed as aggressive. The effect, then, means women leaders are “never quite right.””

Full text under cut

https://www.fastcompany.com/90889985/new-research-reveals-critiques-holding-women-back-from-leadership-that-most-men-will-never-hear

A recent study of the 33 biggest multilateral institutions found that of 382 leaders in their history only 47 have been women. And the percentage of women running Fortune 500 companies has only just recently crested a meager 10%.

As researchers we wondered why institutions consistently fail to promote women to top jobs. Our recent study of 913 women leaders from four female-dominated industries in the U.S. (higher education, faith-based nonprofits, law, and healthcare) sheds light on this pernicious problem. As we found, there’s always a reason why women are “never quite right” for leadership roles.

Women are criticized so often and on so many things that they are acculturated to receiving such disparagement, taking it seriously, and working to make improvements. And any individual woman may take it personally, believing the criticism directed at her to be warranted.

But our research reveals that the problem lies elsewhere. Virtually any characteristic can be leveraged against a woman in a discriminatory fashion. Such criticisms often relate to facets of women’s identity in an overt or subtle way, such as race, age, parental status, attractiveness, and physical ability.

Effectively, the surface-level critique functions as a “red herring,” distracting from the inherent gender bias driving the encounter. This type of treatment is so common that we have called it “we want what you aren’t” discrimination.

More specifically, our research revealed 30 different characteristics and qualities of a woman’s identity that emerged as points of criticism creating barriers to women’s success. The clear message to women is that—whatever they are—they are “never quite right.”

Age was a consistent challenge for women leaders in our study. Some of our respondents reported being considered too young to lead, while others indicated being too old hindered them from advancing.

However, being middle-aged didn’t help women’s career prospects either. A physician shared: “I am middle-aged, and men my age are seen as mature leaders and women my age as old.”

Parental status—having children or being childless—emerged as another point of criticism. A higher-education leader described how people assume she “can’t take on a bigger role ‘because of the kids,’” which made her feel that she needed “to work extra hard” to show that she could be both a dedicated mother and a leader.

On the other hand, a childless physician was expected to “work harder/more, accomplish more” than other female colleagues. Mothers were also bypassed for career opportunities, as happened to a single divorced lawyer who was the mother of preschoolers, “due to a perception by my male bosses that I cannot or should not handle [larger matters].”

Likewise, pregnancy was problematic, particularly for lawyers in our study. There was doubt that women would come back to work after maternity leave. Some were no longer given good assignments, while others were forced to quit private practice or work part time. One lawyer described the loss of confidence from bosses:

“Once you are pregnant or trying to have kids, the way management views you deteriorates. The opposite thing happens for male coworkers. I’ve seen it in so many law firms it’s impossible to argue it was just coincidence or based on merit.”

Simply planning on having kids was enough to invoke bias. A woman in higher education reported being denied promotion because she would need maternity leave for hypothetical future children.

Women of color were targets of subtle bias. An African American faith-based leader described being “invisible” and regularly “talked over” by white men. A Native American higher-education executive described being misperceived as weak, “when in fact we are practicing ‘respect’ for ourselves and others.” And a Filipina physician described facing role incredulity, as people assumed that she was “a nurse, and not a doctor and a division chief at that.”

Even physical ability and health played into the women’s experiences. Physical disabilities led to assumptions of not being capable. One higher-education leader who uses a crutch was questioned by men about the way she walks and has been told “to hide my cane, especially for photographs,” as she said.

Regarding health, there were double standards around the way men and women with illnesses were treated. A physician developed ovarian cancer while serving as an officer in the public health service. She explained, “The plan was to discharge me . . . even though men with prostate cancer didn’t have to go through that.”

The women leaders in our study were considered too young or too old. They were too short or too tall, too pretty or too unattractive or too heavy. They had too much education or not enough or their degrees were not from the “right” schools. They suffered from disrespect and misperceptions due to race, color, or ethnicity. Whether they had children or were childless, the women were expected to work harder than men to prove their worth. Women were held back from leadership opportunities due to being single, married, or divorced. There was no personality trait sweet spot, as introverted women were not seen as leaders and extraverted women were viewed as aggressive. The effect, then, means women leaders are “never quite right.”

Organizations that fail to promote and support women in their top roles miss out on performance gains. Fortunately, there are concrete steps that organizational leaders, allies, and individual women can take to mitigate this “never quite right” bias, aiding women’s workplace advancement.

“Flip it to test it”

Leaders can be particularly effective in thwarting sexist criticisms toward women. It’s not about changing the behavior of women—who are the recipients of the unfair treatment—but it is about changing the behaviors of those who justify their actions as somehow merited. Many criticisms fail the “flip it to test it” method miserably. Ask yourself, would the following statements ever be said about a man?

He needs to smile more.

Men are going to have kids and not want to work.

Since Larry has prostate cancer, he can no longer fulfill his job duties.

The clear answer is no. Leaders can infuse awareness of this simple, yet effective, tool to reduce such bias-laden criticisms. And workplace allies can help stop unfair criticism of women by calling it out.

Constructive career-enhancing feedback

Women are almost one and a half times more likely to receive negative feedback that is subjective rather than constructive and objective feedback. Men are often given a clearer idea of where they excel and opportunities for improvement whereas women are given vague feedback that often focuses on qualities like communication style. Even when using formal performance evaluation rubrics, a disparity remains.

Developmental feedback to women focuses on operational tasks, coping with politics, developing resilience, being cooperative, and building confidence. Developmental feedback to men focuses on setting a vision, leveraging power and politics, being assertive, and displaying confidence. Leaders can reduce the gender-biased framing by encouraging all employees to develop both sets of skills.

Do not take it personally

For individual women, hear us when we say, “It’s not you.” We women are conditioned to accept feedback and internalize it as something to “fix” about ourselves. If you are criticized, consider whether it is objective, constructive, and warranted. Disregard identity-based criticisms that are part of a larger pattern of bias against women.

Our research demonstrates that practically any characteristic can be proclaimed problematic for a woman leader to question her competence and suitability for leadership. It takes deliberate effort, but we can turn the message to women from “We want what you aren’t” into “We want what you are.” Doing so will advance women in the workplace and profit the entire organization.

Amy Diehl, PhD, is chief information officer at Wilson College and a gender equity researcher, speaker, and consultant. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work.

Leanne M. Dzubinski, PhD, is acting dean of the Cook School of Intercultural Studies and associate professor of intercultural education at Biola University, and a prominent researcher on women in leadership. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work.

Amber L. Stephenson, PhD, is an associate professor of management and director of healthcare management programs in the David D. Reh School of Business at Clarkson University. Her research focuses on how professional identity influences attitudes and behaviors and how women leaders experience gender bias.

1K notes · View notes

radfemfox5 · 9 months

Note

What do u think about the arguments of the brains on transgender people? I have seen that the standard response is "brain sex is not a thing". But I have seen that there is a great discussion between scientists about this and there are proofs that brains between men and women are different in some little ways. I also see this through autism lens, because I'm autistic and females are underdiagnosed and there is a discussion about it too: socialization or brain differences that make more easy the masking and faking neurotypical behaviour.

But of course, even if the brain argument is correct, I don't see how transition is the logical next step to take then. Like, is ur brain, u can take therapy and be gender nonconforming if that's the case anyway. Brain can be trained due to neuroplasticity and kids with gender dysphoria can be treated in a way to become more comfortable in their bodies.

Sorry for my poor english, I'm chilean.

Hi, thank you for your question. Don't worry, English isn't my first language either.

So, this is hard to answer. The short answer is that no, brain sex isn't real. If brain sex is not real, then trans-identified males cannot be born with a "female brain." I feel like this has been retired as an argument for transgenderism, as it's not only a nebulous concept but also goes against the concept that you can identify as anything you want (ie: no biological component to gender).

The long answer is that it's complicated. We don't know enough about the brain to fully understand which part does what, let alone what minute differences there may or may not be between the functioning of a male and a female brain. It's been proven that men and women use different parts of the brain to process the same information, so while there are no structural differences, there could be functional differences that we simply don't know about yet.

@woman-for-women has an excellent post about brain sex here (archive), and I'll use the sources she links as references for my next points. Go check out her posts, seriously, she's incredibly thorough and condenses difficult subjects into easy-to-digest infographics.

I'll first go over brain sex, why it's not real / not proven, and consequently why a male having a "female brain" is impossible. This turned out to be very long, so more under the cut.

In my opinion: the myth that males and females behave differently because of innate differences in brain structure comes from 2 things:

Logic / Common sense. If you present a man with a stressful situation, he will not react the same way a woman would. In our everyday lives, it's easy to assume that men and women are simply wired differently, since we have unique behaviours and thought patterns. Contrary to popular belief, most of this doesn't stem from innate biological differences, but rather from gendered socialization. It's hard for us to gauge what portion of our gendered differences is nature (innate) and which portion is nurture (socialization).

Anecdotal evidence and misconceptions about brain function. In the 18th century, it was discovered that a woman's brain weighs on average 5 oz lighter than a man's. This would lead the general public to assume that, since a woman's brain is smaller, this has an impact on her overall intelligence, which is not true.

Assumptions are often made in the general public and even in neuroscience when it comes to which part of the brain does what based on preexisting notions of what a man is and what a woman is. The study I just showed, for instance, was misconstrued in order to strengthen sex-based stereotypes.

What a surprise, my personal interpretation of my results just coincidentally happened to match gendered stereotypes that I was taught. How bizarre.

In all seriousness, this study and its methods have been ripped to shreds by people much smarter than I.

"As Gina Rippon, author of The Gendered Brain and outspoken critic of neurosexism shows, the hunt for proof of women’s inferiority has more recently elided into the hunt for proof of male–female ‘complementarity’. So, this line goes, women are not really less intelligent than men, just ‘different’ in a way that happens to coincide with biblical teachings and the status quo of gender roles. Thus, women’s brains are said to be wired for empathy and intuition, whereas male brains are supposed to be optimized for reason and action."

In reality, according to more recent studies with bigger sample sizes, men and women don't have significant differences in brain structure to conclusively say that brains are sexually dimorphic.

If you're a more visual person, here are the graphs from the first study, showing overall brain matter volumes and volumes for specific brain structures. The second study's visualizations are less easy to understand, as they're brain scans and brain tissue images.

These graphs are called bell curves, and they're used to demonstrate a distribution. Basically, the peak of the "bell" shape means that this is the most common value for a certain demographic, while the extremities are outliers or rarer values.

As you can see, "considerable distributional overlap" means that these bell curves are nearly identical in most brain structures. However, white matter, grey matter and total brain volume are different in men and women, with women in this study typically having lower numbers. This doesn't affect overall intelligence, as we saw earlier, or affect the overall proportional volumes of different brain structures. This is just a result of women having smaller skulls on average.

So, if there is so much overlap between the sexes, then why can't a male have a female brain? The graphs do have overlapping sections, don't they?

The thing is, brain structure is nearly identical in both sexes. Therefore, there is no typically "female" or "male" brain, but rather "unique mosaics of features" which aren't uniquely male or female.

A good analogy that woman-for-women gives is this: if a man's height is closer to an average woman's height, does that mean this man is now a woman? No, he is a short male. Being in the overlap of this graph doesn't mean that you aren't a part of your own bell curve.

This is a complex topic that was very interesting to look into. If you have more questions about this, feel free to send another ask or look into the sources:

Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic (archive)

The human hippocampus is not sexually-dimorphic: Meta-analysis of structural MRI volumes (archive)

Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants (archive)

Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. (archive)

58 notes · View notes

brookheimer · 1 year

Note

truly do not understand how people are JUST NOW seeing roman as a geniune character with depth and not just "haha funney man mommy issues sexual problems lol!!! 🤪" like listen i started watching succession like. 3 weeks ago. and people that were watching this from the second it came out couldn't see the importance of his character until now?? fucking eleventh hour??? anyways hes the queen of my heart 4 ever and ever

no literally like i genuinely just... cannot conceive of someone watching multiple episodes of the show and still not taking him seriously or seeing how tragic he is. it's one thing to think he's an asshole -- he is -- and it's another entirely to think he's a one-note sex-freak funny-guy who isn't written just as carefully and tragically as kendall and shiv. and it's not like this is new news either -- in the second episode, when logan was in the hospital, everyone was trying to figure out who would run waystar and roman was like can you guys shut the fuck up and worry about our dad? and then roman made greg go back to the penthouse to get him something that smelled like logan?!?! this was, again, EPISODE TWO!!!! and somehow people are only saying just NOW that, like, 'turns out roman roy is the most caring/empathetic/family-oriented/etc of them all'! like oh wow turns out logan roy is a bad father. turns out kendall roy is an addict. turns out shiv roy is not the best feminist activist. we have known all of this for a very long time and none of it contradicts the other parts of the characters -- logan is a bad father and a good businessman who is honestly not wrong about his kids, kendall roy is an addict and he is trying so hard not to be and to escape the cycle of abuse, shiv roy is a bad feminist and entirely the product of a family and an environment that refused to value her for her entire life simply by nature of her gender. why could everyone acknowledge these things for the other characters but not roman? why couldn't roman be both an asshole and a deeply tragic character like everyone else?

like, just bc you can't reconcile the unlikable aspects of a character with the nuances of their backgrounds/psyches/etc doesn't mean those depths don't exist, it just means you fundamentally missed the point of his character for at least 3 entire seasons. crazy how articles are really out here saying shit like 'improbably, roman roy shows emotion' like that is actually so incredibly embarrassing ? like, you're a cultural critic at a well-known magazine, your job is literally just getting paid to watch and analyze television shows, and it took you until the final season of succession to realize that roman roy is an interesting character and not just perverted comic relief? why would you admit that to the world for real

#queen of my heart 4 ever and ever 4 real. like . so real #idk what i'm gonna do w myself now that i no longer have to defend his honor. just kidding i am going to spiral about him anyways #also welcome to the lovely world of succession anon! enjoy your time here and by enjoy i mean undergo severe emotional pain #<3 #succession #asks #anon #roman roy #casey shut the fuck up about roman roy #<-- i have made a new tag for me rambling about roman #shouldve done this with like amy brookheimer and people too tbh but cest la vie #100 #this time on posts i didn’t expect to get notes

126 notes · View notes

drbased · 3 months

Note

i’m kind of a baby radfem and im learning about being gender critical and i definitely agree with most of it, the only part that i have thoughts about is the nonbinary identity. i believe that a gender non conforming woman and a nonbinary woman can mean the same thing. in that, i believe that you can be a nonbinary *insert sex here* and it basically just means you’re gender nonconforming. and then it’s like well why do we need two different terms to mean the same thing and we definitely don’t, but i think it’s dangerous to conflate being nonbinary with being agender bc it’s not the same thing and it just makes gender rhetoric even more stupid & ridiculous lol. i’ve seen plenty of people identify as nonbinary and still identify with their sex-based gender. i also believe you can be female and see yourself as a woman and still use they/them or even he/him pronouns. what do u think??

(Bear with me on this, this is a long response but I hope you find it illuminating)

People regularly accuse radfems of being nazis/right wingers and I take those accusations incredibly seriously, and as I result I regularly take time to doubt my position. But the thing I keep coming back to is that:

There is no proof, and perhaps there cannot be proof, that gender exists: it is fundamentally metaphysical, spiritual, soul-like, a product of mind-body dualism, the belief that there is some nebulous internal sense of self that happens to share some labels with sex classification but also happens to completely subsume it in modern leftist discourse, despite that

Regardless of whether or not 'gender' is real, it does not form the basis of the male class oppression of women as a class, and the moment you engage with any feminist theory this fact becomes impossible to ignore. There is no true biological backing behind race and yet we are (in theory, anyway) comfortable with being able to identify and codify the oppressor and oppresses classes in that scenario; however, arguments from the mainstream left will vaguely gesture towards sex being 'fluid' as justification for the dissolution of classic feminist arguments. It's important to be suspicious of why this is and who might benefit from it;

To build on point one, due to the fact that gender has no material basis in the real world, the only 'signifiers' for it are ones that already exist as cultural schemas - and these are, naturally, taken from existing sex roles designed to uphold misogyny and, more broadly, patriachy itself. 'Gender fluid' people are at this point infamous for their tik toks of when they're male or female, and the way they demonstrate this is through short hair and comfortable clothes vs long hair and feminine styling.

Occam's razor + feminist analysis will inevitably point towards women 'identifying' with nonbinary, agender etc. simply being women who are uncomfortable with the misogynistic connotations of femaleness, and who naturally wish to disassociate from them. When you see things under that lens, you can immediately notice patterns of behaviour and language that signal the belief system they hold. To 'identify' as anything is fundamentally meaningless, and signals nothing to both yourself and others except perhaps language. As a person recovering from depression, I have been detaching myself from all rigid concepts of classifying myself and instead focussing much more on being who I am in the moment. It it much healthier to be this way (and a lot less stressful, too)

When we call ourselves 'women', this is nothing more a neutral description of our biology. And due to our status as an oppressed class, especially one based on our biology, it is of paramount importance that we retain language that succinctly names us as such. Dworkin states in Pornography that one of the powers that men have is the power of naming. We still live under patriarchy, and the language we use cannot be separated from male ideas and male thought. Men had, and have, no problem naming us as the oppressor class when it benefits them (especially in the case of prostitution and pornography), but as it has become less, let's say' popular to be seen as a man in recent years, we have seen an explosion of transgender rhetoric enter the popular consciousness. Without the ability to recognise ourselves as women, we lose statistics, we lose safe spaces away from the oppressor class, and we lose class consciousness.

As for using 'they/them' and 'he/they' pronouns - well, I'm a straight woman, but I'm aware that there is a certain lesbian tradition of using masculine pronouns. But that's in a very different context to what's being described here. I've already addressed language but let's put a laser-sighted focus on pronouns for a second:

As a culture, we default to 'he' pronouns for a reason. For a long time, we were 'mankind' and everything akin to humanity is given masculine pronouns. Cute little critters are assumed to be male, probably all your soft toys are male, the most basic of doodles are assumed to be male and only allowed to be female once they are given a dress. It should be no surprise that women who want to escape the shackles of femininity want to be called he/him - they want access to the percieved full humanity of men. Meanwhile, the only times we attribute she/her to things other than people are to things like cars, ships, and natural disasters (with the exception of mother nature, of course) - tools of warfare, accessories of masculinity, and symbols of 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'.

There is a study somewhere that shows that when you use 'they/them' as a neutral pronoun, people assume male - especially if you're referencing a prestige profession. If I were to say, I went to the doctor yesterday, they were great - you would automatically assume a male doctor. This is no accident - as already stated, maleness is the default. Women who want to use they/them are dissociating themselves from femaleness but in doing so they are accidentally using language that signifies maleness. This is why feminist analysis is so important, and why 'identifying' as something holds little water in the real world. In an ideal world, perhaps they/them could be genuinely seen as neutral - but we don't live in an ideal world; we live in a world where women are oppressed.

So to answer part of your question, no, I do not believe that 'nonbinary' and 'gender non-conforming' are the same thing; nonbinary is an attempt at classifying someone according to some nebulous, unprovable sense of internal identity that has no real material impact - and any attempt to 'express' this gender are simply taking existing sex roles and mashing them together. Gender nonconforming has a different meaning in radfem circles as it does in transgender ones - TRAs take it to mean that someone is indentifying with a different gender than they were 'assigned' at birth, but radfems simply use it to describe the physical act of being a woman (or man) who doesn't conform to expected sex roles. I am 'gnc' but that's just a neutral descriptor of my dress-sense - and it's a loose descriptor because in many ways I'm definitely not gnc in my behaviour, although I am working on my self-confidence, especially in contexts such as physical fitness and DIY. Gnc is useful shorthand for 'not conforming to sex roles in some major capacity enough to be noticeable by others' - and the only reason it's important, especially for women, is because femininity (our expected behaviour) is designed by the patriarchy to dissociate us from our bodies and keep us decorative, fragile, weak and sexually vulnerable to men.

#my writing #theory posting

17 notes · View notes

nrilliree · 6 days

Note

https://www.tumblr.com/lunamond/749291445051113472/the-disproportionate-hate-showcriston-gets-is-so?source=share

Oh my god...the Green stans really have a problem. As if Criston was better than the rest of the men of Westeros... And again the stupid accusation of grooming for Daemon. Honestly, every time I see someone say this stupid thing, I understand that the person is just stupid unconsciously or on purpose and I don't know what's the worst. And we're still on the bias of "let's take the worst of historical normalization to justify the misogyny of the character I love!" whereas obviously, we are not going to use historical context for the other characters and launch accusations of grooming at all costs on Daemon and Viserys. Not to mention how crazy it is to say that Daemon has an inappropriate relationship with Rhaenyra in episode 1? Because what ? They're alone in a room and he gives her a gift? WTF? Is this grooming for this person? An uncle giving his niece a gift? And who is alone in a room with her? I love how this person is also unaware that Daemon, even at this time, is not often present in court. In case this person has forgotten, in the story of GRRM there is a criticism of misogyny which is not tolerated, whatever the historical context, the moral of the story is that we hate this disgusting type of character. Morons. Criston Cole was not even forced to have sexual relations with Rhaenyra, without forgetting that gender inversion cannot work in this feudal context where misogyny is omnipresent. Rhaenyra, princess or not, is a woman, and Criston Cole has a position that no woman could have in this society. We are not talking about a common, classic servant, but a Kingsguard. Then, why is it normal to harass the children of the girl who rejected you? The right to be bitter? Is this a joke? This guy never loved Rhaenyra, he wanted to regain his lost honor that he voluntarily gave up by sleeping with the heiress while believing that she would then leave everything behind so that he could keep a clear conscience?! WTF seriously?! Also, you have to explain to me when exactly Rhaenyra laughed in his face. In fact, she was quite nice in her proposal which was the best for everyone, because let's be realistic, this marriage story would have been even more unpleasant for Criston Cole and Rhaenyra from an objective point of view, whether for themselves and their families. I swear the Green stans tire me...

Did this person just compare Mysaria - a former slave - to the noble Criston? House Cole is nobility. Then we'll assume Harwin is lowborn too? Criston was just as much of a nobleman as any other nobleman. His house was not one of the Great Houses, but it was still nobility. I think people think he's lowborn because of his stupid idea of growing oranges, lol.

For TG it looks like this: Criston is sleeping with Rhaenyra - oh no, his honor is ruined 😭 Criston hits the future king consort at his own wedding - 🙈 🙉 🙊 Criston murders an unarmed knight, an honored guest of House Velaryon, at a royal wedding - 🙈 🙉 🙊 Criston neglects his guard, which the king has assigned him, so three princes and two little ladies sneak out of the castle and blood is shed - 🙈 🙉 🙊 Criston murders an unarmed lord… again - 🙈 🙉 🙊

#house of the dragon #team black #anti team green #pro team black #anti team green stans #anti criston stans #anti criston cole

15 notes · View notes

confessionsofamasc · 6 days

Text

Things appear to stand apart from each other; they create contrast. Contrast leads to tension and tension does not inevitably end in terror. No, I don’t negate myself. I was called a little girl and inside of that little girl was the person who I am and who I have always been. That I call myself a man is not a contradiction and it is not a correction. If a mistake was made it was the mistake of the immediate dwindling of potentials for my life at the outset. I cannot correct this. My manhood was not a factory reset. “The past is never dead”, and all that.

Being a man is not a burial, it is not even a resurrection. It seems beyond me that I arrived here. The mechanisms that clamped down on my life when I was born remain exactly where I have always known them to be. My ability to choose what I do with my body, with my self, my ability to be taken seriously, my labor, the roles people expect me to play in their lives remain fraught. People cannot take my word for that, but that is part of it.

I was a child when I came to know that I could become pregnant. This was a reality I could not allow. I was seized with terror. I understood that there was something about me that would make this experience life threatening, I was full of tension I could not place. Instinctually I knew this tension would be resolved through some kind violence. I insisted that I would not let it happen and my mother reassured me either that I wouldn’t have to or that I didn’t need to think about it yet, probably both.

I had always been called a tomboy. I liked things that were “for boys”, which boiled down to adventure, exploration, knowing. I liked dragons, bugs, reptiles, fish. I don’t believe any of this to be gendered. I did not express a desire to be perceived as a boy, I insisted on wearing “boy” pull-up diapers because they had the cartoon characters I liked on them, a choice that attracted criticism from my preschool teachers. I had no interest in my appearance and I was not in any position to dress myself or dictate how I would like to look. That was never an option and it would not be until I was able to insist with enough force. I simply expressed a desire for the things that I liked and regarded everything else with ambivalence.

My long hair was allowed to grow tangled, my disinterest in picking up on the feminine codes I was expected to understand, my outright resistance to them (I was terrified of getting my ears pierced, I hated feeling restricted by my hair or my clothes, I played rough and shamelessly) quickly left me without any solid social standing with the majority of my peers. I was not feminine, but I was not masculine. I was adrift. I was resented by caretakers for being difficult and then left alone for it. No other options were offered to me and my exploration went unnoticed. I doubt the adults in my life understood that there were other options and I doubt they would have had the energy to pay that much attention if they did. If they had been different people, perhaps there would have been concern or more outright anger and coercion than there was (and there inevitably was more and more of it), but they were simply not around. I slipped through the cracks.

I recognize this now as a part of the bigger issue of the neglect I endured as a child. If the adults in my life had been present perhaps I would have been made to learn to act like a little girl. But the fact that I did not was to my detriment, it has had permanent consequences. I did not escape the expectation. I received plenty of reprimands and my isolation was stark and only increased as my peers grew socially and I grew in a different direction. There was a growing threat of violence that I felt coming for me, but I didn’t know why. It was written off as anxiety. No one taught me how to act in a way that would let me cohere socially and what I saw on my own I did not want. And so I was failing without knowing it, without understanding that I was. I felt I was lost alone in a very interesting jungle.

I was a child who was deeply alone, a ball of wants and curiosities with no existing shape I could measure them against, no structure to guide me. I did not talk to adults for many years of my life. My world was other children. I had the capacity to recognize affinities between myself and others, but no way of understanding that want, let alone actualizing them.

I did have friends, at least one of whom I now know to be a butch woman. I played as if I were an equal with certain boys because we had not yet fully understood that we weren’t supposed to. I played with girls too, I admired them. We got along in different ways and similar ways. I don’t remember a secret simmering hatred or judgment anywhere in them, that was instilled later. There were certainly kids I avoided, boys who were cruel to girls, but mostly I did not understand my own impulses or instincts. I only followed them. I am struck by how we were all so full of potential in spite of everything.

#transgender #transmasc #transmasculine #trans man

9 notes · View notes

sokkastyles · 11 months

Note

So, this is a post for another fandom, but the discussion of Azula and Zuko came up in it, and OP revealed themselves as an Azula apologist. Thought you might be interested.

What's so funny about this is that before OP goes on their rant (so tired of people misusing feminist talking points to excuse abusive behavior) they themselves actually hit on, then immediately dismiss, the reason why people like Zuko more than Catra.

"just because her redemption arc wasn't as good"

Like, that's it. That's the thing. It doesn't matter what actions Zuko did that might be worse (although given what OP later writes, I would seriously question that statement). We're talking about stories, so the character who has a better written arc is going to be liked more, and that's that. It has nothing to do with gender at all. It also has nothing to do with who did what when they were a villain, because if the redemption isn't believable enough, it doesn't matter. Zuko has a better written story and in the land of fiction, that is always going to be more forgivable.

You could argue that there is misogyny in the fact that we don't get enough female characters who are as well-written as Zuko, but I'm a feminist who reads enough fiction that I don't need to pretend something is a good story just because it's female-led. I think a lot of people wanted the She-Ra show to be good for that reason, but in the end, consuming media isn't activism. And from what I've seen of the relationship between Catra and Adora - hell, from the way people talk about Azula, too - a LOT of people will forgive shitty behavior if a woman is doing it on the grounds of "feminism," and that's not only not feminist - how many women suffer because of Catra and Azula's actions? - it's extremely dangerous because it perpetuates the idea that women cannot be abusers.

You want good female representation? Maybe read a book instead of putting all your money on one or two popular cartoon series.

Now that I got THAT out of my system, there's a lot wrong with what OP says about Azula.

None of what OP says to defend Azula is feminist. Like, they don't even attempt to back up this claim the way some Azula stans do, they just say it like they think declaring themselves a feminist makes it so. And then they spend most of the post bashing Ursa, natch. OP will not explain why defending Azula is feminist (because it isn't), but I can explain why bashing Ursa is misogyny. Because you're taking a female character we know barely anything about other than that she was a mother and that she was fridged for the main characters, and insisting she must have been a bad mother based on minimal evidence. Even though we know why her children acted the way they did and we know it had to do with the negative actions of their father. Blaming Ursa for Azula is misogynist because it is shifting blame from a male abuser to a female character who was his victim, and focusing the blame on how she was a bad mother, with very little evidence that she was. But reducing a female character to motherhood and criticizing her for not being saintly is absolutely misogyny.

Where is it "expanded on in the comics" that Ursa gave up on Azula? Or that Azula acted out for Ursa's attention?

Here we see Ursa spending time with both her kids. Azula hangs back because she sees a flower in the garden that isn't as pretty, and waits until Ursa's back is turned to burn it. Then, when Zuko tells on her, she burns Zuko. Azula isn't trying to get Ursa's attention here. She waits until Ursa isn't looking and is mad when she gets negative attention from Ursa because Zuko told on her. She did not want her mother to notice her burning the flower. But when her mother does notice, Azula explains why she did it. Because it wasn't as pretty. It's very obvious what's going on here. Azula is acting out, but not because she's being neglected by her mother. She's acting out in the ways her father groomed her to act out, because her father taught her that if something isn't the best, it's worthless and deserves to be hurt. She then applies this to Zuko, who she thinks deserves to be hurt because he told on her.

And this is a pattern of behavior for Azula that we see not only in the comics, but the series itself. In "Zuko Alone," far from acting out to get her mother's attention because she "gave up on her," we see Azula lie to her mother so that she can get Zuko to play with her, with the purpose of playing a mean prank on Zuko.

Azula appeals to the fact that she knows Ursa thinks she and her brother should get along. If Azula was desperate for her mother's attention, if Ursa gave up on her, Azula would not be able to successfully lie to her mother this way.

What these scenes show is not that Ursa gave up on Azula or that Azula lacked attention from her mother, but that even at a young age (which was more like 8, actually) Azula was influenced by her father's cruelty and acted it out on others, and knew how to manipulate her mother in order to get what she wanted. Shifting blame onto Ursa for trying to teach her child right from wrong, for trying to protect her other child, is misogyny.

Also "Zuko let his insecurities get in the way of his relationship with Azula" is a weird way of saying that Azula deliberately played on Zuko's insecurities to hurt him. Like, you cannot ignore that the reason Zuko is insecure is, in large part, because of Azula, because she provokes his insecurites and then blames him for feeling insecure. This is victim blaming.

Also, the doll thing. I am so tired, y'all. If you automatically assume Azula getting a doll from her uncle is proof he doesn't care about her, who is the misogynist again? If the show wanted us to think this was a thoughtless, sexist, or even misguided gift, that would be shown. We would see Iroh ignoring hints that Azula does not like dolls. Instead, what we see is Azula getting a gift from a relative who hasn't seen her in years, and she burns it because it isn't exactly what she wanted, and then says she hopes her uncle dies. This says FAR more about Azula than it does Iroh, and it is meant to. The OP then goes on to say that Azula was right about Iroh when she mocked his son's death and said he should have burned Ba Sing Se to the ground, but then says he committed more crimes and bloodshed than her, conversely. What bloodshed? We're shown no bloodshed because this is a nickelodeon cartoon show. But we ARE shown Azula mocking Iroh for not being more violent. So don't tell me Iroh is somehow worse. Azula's coup on Ba Sing Se would not be bloodless if this was Game of Thrones, and overthrowing a city using deception isn't more moral than a siege.

Azula also was not "right" about Iroh in the way OP claims because they make it seem like she objected to Iroh ending the siege because she cared about her nation and people. That is not what she said. She said he should have burned the city to the ground to be "a real general." This, and Azula's other actions, such as giving irrational orders and making threats when they aren't carried out from her introductory episode, show that Azula has no real concept of statecraft beyond how to violently assert power, and we know who taught her that.

Also, Azula did not immediately apologize to Ty Lee after making her cry by slut-shaming her (how often the "feminists" forget that). She begrudgingly apologized, and then made it about herself and what Ty Lee should do for her.

Okay, okay, calm down. I didn't mean what I said. [Frontal view over Ty Lee's shoulder.] Look, maybe I just said it because I was a little ... [Whispers.] jealous.

I know people make a lot of this because it's a rare scene of Azula being accountable for her actions, but that alone should tell you something. It doesn't make Azula this kind and compassionate soul. It's not even a great apology. Sincere apologies do not begin with "Okay, okay, calm down." Azula just told her friend that boys only like her because she's easy. The fact that Ty Lee forgives her, especially after everything Azula did to her, makes Ty Lee a saint. And then Azula has a very difficult time admitting that she is jealous, because of course she does. And yes, I know, people make a lot of this because it's Azula, and yeah, it probably did take a lot of effort for Azula to admit that Ty Lee was better at her at something, but that is because Azula is egotistical and selfish and cruel to even her "friends."

And Mai...Azula does not get points for not understanding that she can't force Mai to murder her boyfriend for Azula. Azula asking Mai why she did it even though she "knew the consequences" again shows how little regard Azula has for even her friends, who she thinks she can control using threats. Azula thought she could use Mai to control Zuko and then when Mai's feelings were inconvenient, expected Mai to just watch Zuko die, and is so offended when that doesn't happen.

Also, Zuko never worked on his anger issues? It is literally a major plot point that Zuko says he doesn't want to rely on anger anymore and finds another way. And I've talked about this before, but this idea that Azula is so calm and collected is utterly ridiculous. You only have to look at the examples I mentioned above, but also many more, to see Azula fly into a rage at the slightest provocation, make threats, act out violently, and attempt to control others through fear to see that that is not true. The real difference is that Azula thinks she is justified in acting this way, and when that stops getting her results, rather than trying to change and learning to understand and value other people, she has a breakdown. You have to misunderstand Azula's entire arc to not get that. It is literally explained to us at every opportunity in the narrative.

Conclusion: if you claim to be a feminist, act like one and get to know some feminist theory. And just because you're a woman does not exclude you from being an idiot.

#azula #zuko #the discourse #abuse

35 notes · View notes

utilitycaster · 1 year

Note

I’m I the only one who finds it alarming that most of this fandom who ship Imogen and Laudna (especially on twitter) don’t realize the unhealthyness thats going on in their relationship? They literally see two women to are affectionate with each other and say “ENDGAME!” “GIRLFRIENDS!” “MARRIED!” “KISS KISS KISS!” Then they focus on quotes that are kinda alarming, and Imogen’s Jealousy is pretty fucking Alarming! Saying that they are in love and just haven’t realized it yet. (Don’t get me started on that one blog on here counting down the days “till imodna realizes their in love.” I find it so fucking annoying.) Loving someone and being IN love with someone is two different things. Also another thing! I HATE THAT PEOPLE CALL THEM LESBIANS! THE BOTH HAVE EXPRESSED FEELINGS FOR MALE PERSENTING PEOPLE! I dread the day when the campaign ends and they don’t end up together or during the campaign fall IN love with someone that’s not each other. Especially if it’s a male persenting person, because the Laura and Marisha will be harassed and the shippers will yell Queerbait, also the men hating/haters will be in full force.

Hi anon,

I agree with most of this; I'm answering under a cut in the hopes that people who will be upset by an answer will be able to avoid it, without me having to explicitly discourse tag it and in doing so throw it to people who troll that tag to get mad at things. Also this is SUPER long and covers a lot of the thoughts I've had percolating on the CR fandom/shipping culture in general.

I think I and a lot of people who primarily deal in meta/analysis in this fandom have been inching ever closer to a lot of the points you've made here, and I am generally very willing to be the one who snaps and says "yeah has anyone noticed the emperor has literally no clothes on like what the fuck".

Let's start with the end and work backwards: It's happened before, it will happen again if Laura and Marisha's characters do not get together, and it's irritating, but like, I will take a good story and the consequences of a shitty segment of the fandom rather than the path of least resistance every time. I almost said something to this effect on the positive vibes ask last night, but like...there will always be people who are hateful and stupid on the internet, so you may as well stand in your own truth rather than fear their consequences. (Not that I don't respect the choice to quietly avoid harassment; I am the way I am because I know at this point I can take a pretty hard hit and shut it down, but that has not always been the case.) Anyway, people called an actual canon ship between lesbian characters queerbaiting last campaign, so it's not like those accusations hold any weight or need to be taken seriously; outside of their tiny circle, everyone thinks those people are idiots.

I do, as a bi woman, hate the tendency among hardcore shippers to erase bisexuality. They do it because a bi character's competing ships cannot be as easily dismissed as 'obviously can't happen, they're gay or lesbian', and they don't care how biphobic they look doing it. You are absolutely correct: Imogen and Laudna have both indicated interest in men or masc nb people. (Others have also pointed out that people tend to exclusively use he/him pronouns about Ashton when they are being critical of them, so they don't care how transphobic they look doing it either, apparently; also I don't think Ashton identifies as a he/they lesbian but there are in fact people who do identify as such so like...if your goal is to eliminate Ashton/Laudna as an option by saying Laudna is a lesbian, against all evidence to the contrary, you also need to make a number of presumptions about Ashton's sexuality and gender identity as well.)

This brings me to a tricky section about fandom in general but I think it's worth saying. In the real world, homophobia and transphobia are very real. They negatively impact our lives in heartbreaking and deadly ways. It is still the norm in most US media for the bulk of relationships shown to be between a cis man and a cis woman, and for protagonists to be cis and straight (note: also often able-bodied, male, white, etc but the focus of this discussion is queerness so I'm not covering all axes of oppression). However, in many fandom spaces, queer characters and ships are the fan favorites. Tumblr's userbase does skew heavily queer, and additionally, tends to skew towards women. In other words, a lot of things that are very true in real life do not hold in fandom spaces.

Which is to say: we're in a situation where an F/F ship is the massive juggernaut for the fandom right now. It does not mean that lesbians (or bi women who enter into relationships with other women) are not oppressed in the real world; it does mean that within the highly specific space of the Critical Role fandom, people are more likely to be in favor of this ship than not. It also means that a lot of the people who aren't into it are not homophobes, but are queer people - often even wlw - who are saying "I would like F/F ships! I would like them to actually be good." Like, to me, the only difference between Imogen and Laudna and every M/F canon relationship on network TV that's made me go "you're telling me they should be together, but I don't see it" is that they're both women (and I would bet a large sum that for a lot of people, this isn't about the dynamic, but purely about the gender of the people involved, ie, if Imogen were a man played by one of the men in the cast people wouldn't ship it, where as I personally can comfortably say I'd ship any of the canon ships from past campaigns regardless of character gender. This also admits that biological essentialism is fake and that Exandria is pretty gender equalthough, which some people don't want to do.)

Part of why I've been so frustrated is that, at least from my perspective, the overwhelming majority of hate and harassment I've seen within the fandom in Campaign 3 - and in Campaign 2 - has been from people who have shipped Marisha and Laura's characters. There has, in fact, been pretty considerable hate as well as measured criticism levied towards M/F ships (we're seeing some with Ashton/Laudna here, but both Fjord/Jester and Caleb/Jester, the latter of which I actively dislike and have openly criticized, received pretty vehement hate last campaign and most of it came from people who shipped Jester with Beau) and M/M ships (less harassment per se but people who shipped Caleb with Jester said some truly awful things about Caleb/Essek; also while I have not, you know, harassed people, I have said essentially the same things about how Taliesin and Liam's characters are shipped every campaign despite often having little connection as I have about Marisha and Laura's. I just don't talk about it as much because while I think and have said that Ashton/Orym is basically nothing - and that Widomauk, which most people vaguely classify as M/M, and for that matter, Percy/Vax, all are basically nothing - no one who ships those has called me a cunt or reblogged my posts in an abusive manner or called me out for the grave sin of preferring canon to fanon, so I respect the ship and let ship of it all.) For that matter, the bulk of hate towards Beauyasha came from people who shipped Beau and Jester. Like...I am confident there are people who dislike this ship specifically because it's between two women, and they are homophobic, but that is not the quarter where I think most of the criticism on Tumblr or Twitter is coming from.

So let's get to the last point. Why do people ship two women simply because they're standing next to each other? Why do they ignore countless red flags - and I am specifically talking about treating Imogen and Laudna's relationship as healthy and loving; not about shipping it in general. I cannot stress enough that if you treat Imogen/Laudna as some kind of toxic Briarwoods situation and are into that, I support that entirely.

There are a few reasons. First and foremost, I think a lot of people project onto characters rather than letting the characters provide them with differing perspectives. I find this deeply sad. It's not that you can't draw parallels between your own life and that of fictional characters or see yourself in them - you're supposed to! But it says something depressing about your empathy if your qualifications for which characters speak to you are only those who match your demographics. Like, I've said before, but my favorite characters from past campaigns are Vex and Fjord, and they have a lot in common! If you relate to one based on their themes of Who You Are In The Dark and the mask you present to the world over a face you don't particularly like, you will probably relate to the other! But also...I am a cis bi woman, I am not a person of color as both those characters are often considered coded to be (though am an ethnic minority), nor did I personally experience extensive emotional abuse and poverty as a child. I think there's value in wanting to see people like you! But also...representation is not just "I want to see people like me"; it's also "I want to humanize people who are not like me". If you cannot relate to someone simply because they don't match your gender or sexuality, then that's a really shallow and cold way to interact with the world. And, specifically in relation to queerness within Critical Role: this is a world that has consistently been depicted as not having homophobia or transphobia. I understand wanting to explore these themes and seeing characters who have experienced them, but like...this is not the media that will reasonably have a one-to-one portrayal of homophobia or transphobia, and you often will need to bend over backwards and project a lot of stuff that simply isn't in the canon to read that into them because the worldbuilding simply doesn't support it. And, to be clear, you can do that; but at that point you're applying a lens that only you can obtain, so you shouldn't be surprised if few people come along with you. (I also think it's kind of dumb to watch a show with 5 cis men on it, four of whom are married to women, and be mad that the story has men in it and that those men sometimes are attracted to women; unpacking this would easily double the length of this already incredibly long post though.)

So: this sets a stage for people coming into the show saying "who looks like me, or can I make to look like me" rather than engaging with what's actually going on. Part of why I've been hesitant on Imogen and Laudna the whole time, though started out much more open to it, is in fact that it was heavily shipped from quite literally the moment that Laura and Marisha were indicated to be playing two women who knew each other from before. We knew nothing about their dynamic other than "existing friendship". So I think a lot of people put the cart before the horse and started shipping, and I do think - and I could be entirely wrong - a lot of them, deep down in their hearts, know that they are twisting their interpretations to match an idea of these two characters that has increasingly been proven not to be true onscreen. Like, I think a lot of people kind of realize that Imogen is putting Laudna in a horrible position here; I think a lot of people realize that their so-called 'unconditional' love that transcends words means there's no room to resolve or even express conflict. Perhaps they don't, but like, I'd like to give people the benefit of the doubt. It's just...I think that because this ship is so all-consuming within the fandom, and because so many people have staked their identities within the fandom on it, they don't know how to leave it and are scared of retaliation if they do.

This is backed up by the slow shift I've described - Imodna started out with "they're already girlfriends" or "they're already in love but just haven't said it" or "what could ever happen other than they become ever closer and eventually kiss" (as witnessed by these questions) to "they realized they were in love during the campaign" to "Imogen is in love with Laudna but Laudna isn't aware" to "god remember how they used to talk, I'd give anything for it" to "I guess a QPR is okay" (which is itself bizarre, like, the issues I see in their relationship are still just as much issues in a nonsexual partnership as a sexual one; honestly, it's not a healthy friendship though it is an interesting one and the problem's I have are not going to be fixed by kissing.) Like, it's not the normal evolution of feelings one might have about a ship as the show goes on and more information is revealed, or rather, it's a ship that's becoming less and less confident as time goes on which is the opposite of how canon ships tend to go. (Which, I need to stress, does not discount that it could not be canon; it's just that I think it would require a pretty profound shakeup and conflict to do so). The signs and signals are becoming more and more tenuous and the shippers keep lowering and lowering the bar.

Since I've already brought up past campaigns and ships, let's do it again for the sake of illustration; this feels like how people who shipped Caleb and Jester went from ENDGAME to "Caleb is pushing away Jester to protect her" to "I think Laura is biting her lip when she's looking at Liam! This is a SIGN" even in episodes where Jester was like, actively making out with Fjord, to, and I am not making this up, posting pictures of the CR shop showing Laura in Caleb merch as evidence. Or how the bulk of Vex/Keyleth shipping in TLOVM rested on a scene in the trailer where Keyleth was staring dreamily and drunkenly into space while Vex was across the table only for the show to reveal Keyleth was staring at Vax. Like, all shipping does require a certain degree of cherrypicking, but there is a point where you are focused only on subtext and never text, and while that was how one had to interact with queer stories in the past, it's ridiculous to be doing it on a show where Marisha has openly RP-ed Beau eating Yasha out. Like, if they wanted to show two women being romantically involved, they will. (There's been a lot of Xena comparisons thrown around, and like...not that Xena isn't an important part of the history of depicting F/F relationships in media, but it is also a syndicated show from the 90s and couldn't show an explicitly lesbian relationship, and Critical Role very much can and has.)

I do think there are a subset of people who don't realize how unhealthy this is. Like...this is a whole psychological thing that I am unequipped to unpack, but I do think there are people for whatever reasons genuinely do believe that love means never having to say you're sorry. I am hoping this is because of youth and inexperience, because being able to communicate and advocate for yourself is a crucial part of relationships, as is the ability to express and resolve conflict. As you've noticed, the people who ship this have all said "well, obviously, Imogen won't betray Laudna" - but we don't know that. Honestly I think it could go either way. But they have to make that assumption to keep shipping it, because if Imogen might betray Laudna, then that does mean that there would have been more meaning and value in Laudna speaking up and that conversation was deeply flawed.

I also think some of this comes from unconditional love being an unreasonable expectation foisted upon us all at large. There are always conditions, or rather, you might always in some way love someone, but there are conditions under which you'd leave or boundaries you will draw. You can love someone who (for example) is dealing with an addiction but still refuse to let them drive while intoxicated or steal your stuff to pay for drugs. You can love someone who cheats on you but still want to end that relationship. I mean, while fear, self-doubt, and resources/logistics are all factors in people leaving abusive relationships, it's also true that a lot of people have some affection for the good times and that is a factor as well. Love is not a simple on/off switch. You can feel multiple things at once - honestly, that's what Ashton basically says this past episode, that they both love and hate the party! I think Imogen and Laudna do genuinely love each other, though I don't interpret it as romantic; I just also think that there's a lot of stuff they don't like about each other but are unable to express, and which will only become more and more of a threat to a potential romantic (or queerplatonic) relationship if left to fester unresolve. And, to be honest, I suspect real-world homophobia and fandom purity issues are part of why people are so unwilling to discuss why Imogen and Laudna's relationship is unhealthy; because it means admitting that queer relationships can have most of the same problems as straight ones, and possibly admitting that you still find an unhealthy relationship interesting and want to see it played out.

#answered #Anonymous #long post #cr tag #posts that make me realize i should probably watch the celluloid closet

111 notes · View notes

minetteskvareninova · 9 months

Note

Oo what's the drama with Colin Falconer

I only ever read one book of his, but God was that more than enough. It was about Hürrem sultan... Well, mostly, there's this subplot about this chick named Giulia and guy named Abbas, anyway hon if you ever had trouble with low blood pressure, 10/10 would recommend, otherwise it's not a book for you, in fact I cannot imagine a book less for you if I made it up Goncharov-style. It's basically like Magnificent Century, if it was very much written by a western author and A BILLION TIMES WORSE

Have you ever thought Magnificent Century was a little unfair to Hürrem? In Harem, she's the most evil harlot to have ever been spat onto the face of the Earth by the hell itself. Seriously. Think of any redeeming quality she could have, quick. This Hürrem very pointedly and explicitly does not have it. Her love for Süleyman? Hah! She's been pretending this whole time to make Süleyman her slave! Love for her children? Nope nopity nope! This Hürrem actually lies to Süleyman at her deathbed that Bayezit may not be his son, just so he would kill him, because she wants Selim to take over. Not because she prefers Selim, but because she knows he would be a terrible sultan and destroy the empire she hates so much. Oh, so she's a broken, traumatized kidnapping victim lashing out against her oppressors? Well, I guess, but Falconer downplays this aspect of her character as much as possible, basically only mentioning her feeling "trapped" at the start of the book, just making her seem angry and not at all like she's, you know. Traumatized. So she at least has some empathy towards her fellow slaves? Or anyone else in the entire world??? No! This Hürrem is an absolute evil incarnate, like she does not do a single good thing for anyone else ever, even by accident.

Have you ever thought Magnificent Century didn't quite do the justice to Süleyman the Magnificent? In Harem, he's but a pawn in the hands of eeevil Hürrem, who catches every bait, is fooled by every trick and unwittingly helps her fulfill every evil plan of hers. To Falconer's miniscule credit, he does make an effort to kinda, sorta make reader see what Süleyman sees in Hürrem, and at times he's almost an interesting character, but one of the greatest statesmen of the Ottoman history he is not.

Have you ever thought Magnificent Century can be a little bleak? Well, In Harem, Colin Falconer has made it his life's mission to prove that he's the edgiest little edgelord, to only be beaten by Tara Gillespie. This book is an excellent example of wannabe gritty realism that ends up saying nothing about real world and not feeling real for a fucking second. Like, just focusing on the harem itself, the life there is presented as miserable, which, fine, we are trying to sympathize with these women... I would say if I didn't have a sneaking suspicion that Falconer lowkey hates, or at least does not particullarly care for the other gender. So what you end up with is an endless parade of suffering women that the narrative doesn't give any dignity, agency or empathy. The only exception is Giulia, whose life of repression and meagre attempts at reclaiming agency would be kinda interesting, if they went literally anywhere, but they don't, because Falconer kinda hates women, but readers even moreso. And don't get me started on the sexualization, because if Minette says you enjoy describing the titties too much you, you definitely enjoy describing the titties too much. Which together with the endless abuse of women just makes this book feel all the more gross.

Have you ever thought Magnificent Century has a problem with not being critical enough of the empire? Well, Harem tries that, but then Hürrem is presented as irredeemably evil for trying to ruin the empire and tricking Süleyman into fighting less, which she does not do out of political consideration, even though her arguments make sense and it's probably what IRL Süleyman realized on his own, also saint Mustafa is still there and still as much of a brave soldier destroyed by the evil Hürrem as ever... Basically any effort at critique is demolished as thoroughly as possible by the sheer force of author's hatred for Hürrem.

Have you ever thought Magnificent Century has unfortunately left out or underserved some interesting female personalities of the era, like Süleyman's granddaughters or the female buddies of Selim II.? In Harem, Ayşe Hafsa is... Well, there for a portion of the book, basically twiddling her thumbs, which is nice, because at least they can't ruin her. Mahidevran is yet another female victim without agency, just a bit more prominent than the others. Mihrimah is there for one scene, just to establish she hates her husband, have her exposited on by Rüstem and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE. Yeah. Like, fuck, this book almost makes me want to appologize to the Magnificent Century Mihrimah, she's a pretty unlikeable character, but at least she is a character. And Nurbanu? Nurbanu who? We don't know 'dem, and we certainly don't have 'dem over here!

Have you ever thought Magnificent Century was unfair to Selim II.? In Harem, he's a monstrous child rapist in addition to a drunken glutton. Also, no Nurbanu, because fuck you, reader, at this point of the book you really shouldn't have expected anything.

Have you ever thought Magnificent Century plays fast and loose with history? Harem can't even get the order of Hürrem's children right. Seriously. For example, Selim is the firstborn in this. Because why pass an opportunity to be pointlessly stupid?

Have you ever thought Magnificent Century is a bit lacking when it comes to medical knowledge? In Harem, an important plot point, by which I mean Selim's conception, hinges on a castrated man conceiving two children with two different women. Like a character in the book explicitly notes that unlike harem eunuchs, guards don't have the entire package chopped off, only balls WELL WHERE DO YOU THINK GAMETES COME FROM, AND YES THEY CAN SOMETIMES STILL HAVE SEX, EVER HEARD OF SHOOTING BLANKS YOU FUCKING GENIUS???

And just in case the things weren't bad enough, there's one final fuck you on the road with the epilogue, which mightily strives to be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever read - for me, a veteran of braindead straight women-oriented porn. Because no BDSM loving billionaire with a sixpack and big schlong can ever top this.

Basically, Falconer is trying to make his wildly historically inaccurate book seem like it's remotely plausible, which, cute, not the first time I've seen a historical novel do that. But at least they weren't trying to justify a man without testicles siring a child... And they didn't do it by claiming that every sultan before Süleyman was this mighty steppe warrior and statesman (after he portrayed Süleyman himself as a dupe completely ensnared by one woman's wicked wiles, again, adorable) and every sultan after him was this lazy, decadent tyrant, often also crazy (because sure, Mahmut II. isn't even in this book, but why the fuck not insult also him for good measure?!), so his argument is that "the line must've been broken". Because the great Süleyman the Magnificent (who again I cannot stress enough how not Magnificent he is in this book) couldn't have possibly sired a failson, his mighty sperm isn't capable of such a feat, it must've been someone else, like A FUCKING EUNUCH.

Now if you excuse me, I've gotten the long-requested review of this heinous book out of my system, please let me either drink myself to death, or detox by watching Good Omens, whichever comes more easily. Thank you and good night.

#magnificent century #hürrem sultan #random history #minette complains #colin falconer

22 notes · View notes

dam-peace · 3 months

Note

Apologies for my very long rant. I have alot to say unfortunately.

So I just read the new teasers for both V.V and A.B.O and holy smokes were they good. I loved your writing before don't get me wrong. It took me by surprise and God's was it very... descriptive lol but I loved it!! And I still do.

I tried every variation of the replies MC could've given and they are all so unique personality wise that I know you put so much work into it. Some dialog made me legit 🤭 I loved how humorous and also deadpan it can be.

Also thank you for adding more available for all gender ROs to V.V not that it's a criticism for A.B.O just as someone that usually romances as a MLM it's just super awkward even fictionally to romance a female RO when you simply just can't relate? When you are romancing the opposite gender. I hope that makes sense. And then on A.B.O I appreciate the secret RO then being a MLM romancer only. Tho with my luck it's gonna end up being a villain 🤣

What else was there... oh when it comes to A.B.O am I right in saying Hex and ghost aren't romancable character? They didn't have any MC romance related info in their details.

Lastly I know this has been a long time in the making and honestly you are a very talented writer. I hope you do realize that when things get a bit much writing wise. I cannot wait to read the demo when you release it and I truly hope you get so much more recognition because your work speaks for itself. You havw a major fan in me. 😇

Have a good evening/ whatever time of the day you end up reading this. ♥️

First of all your "rambling" was incredibly sweet and certainly brought a smile to my face. So please don't apologise and thank you so much for your kind words, it just warms my little heart🥹🩷

Also, I'm happy that I was able to broaden my horizons and give players more access to each RO. And in your case that would be MLM RO's so I'm incredibly happy about that, representation is a really big thing for me. And I'd hate to leave certain groups out of the whole gaming process if I can help it. (Also, the secret M RO couldn't possibly be a villain 😂.....or could be? 😳🫢👀)

And yes you're correct, Hex and Ghost are not RO's they were never designed with that in mind. Which will become evident later on, when it's shown in game that Hex is actually 14 and Ghost is 13. Whilst the MC is 16, as well as the other RO's. Apart from Zero and Viper who are 17, so that's a definite no.

And once again, thank you SO much for sending this message in. Like seriously I almost teared up reading this and I'm very much not a crier. Things have been piling on top of me lately, so it's really nice to have words of encouragement every now and then.

Thank you so much for enjoying my work, for your continued support and just simply by taking notice of a little writer like me. Love you, and have a GREAT day/evening 🩷🩷🩷

#🩷🩷🩷#I'm going to ugly cry #Reader Contribution

8 notes · View notes

96percentdone · 6 months

Text

Is Shouma really the trans rep y'all want? Someone who had no agency in their metaphorical puberty blockers and was forced and threatened into 'taking' them, hated it for years, and eventually decided 'yeah i guess it's pretty neat i'm still youthful but also but also fuck that guy who did this to me?' Is this not just a right wing talking point about how doctors are abusing innocent children with irreversible surgeries to trans their genders being with trans-positive paint? I think reclaiming transphobic narratives them can be powerful, but the context of Nirvana Initiative canon this doesn't feel like 'reframing conservative beliefs' so much as just. Doing their arguments beat by beat including the medical abuse part and saying 'its good actually we want this.'

I haven't seen works transformative enough that change the text so Shouma wasn't abused into the early stages of her transition, or that she was actually willing to take the abuse and deception once she learned about it to see if it could get her what she wants for her body, and her grievances are with the abuse alone. It's just treated as a given that canon is exactly as we know it to be, and the ends justify the means.

Maybe a controversial take, but I just think a lot of transcanons are poorly considered, genderbent or no. This isn't specific to aitsf, and I'm also not saying anyone who likes them are just as bad, even for the ones I don't like at all like this one. They are popular with trans people first and foremost, that would be a bizarre claim; I'm not your dad, fandom should make you happy, do whatever. My beef is that as far as I have seen, a lot of the popular ones in trans fan communities are done by picking some part of the text, ignoring the context it exists in, and then using that detail to justify the hc, even if the context flies against it, and without providing any new context to supplement or even replace the old one. We're just left to assume that everything else is the same still, and transitioning is often the focus of genderbent ones making it stranger. In the case of transfem!shouma, this style of creation just like accidentally leans into transphobic ideas, but even for characters where it's not doing that, they're still similarly thoughtless. Transmasc Kuranushi Mizuki has its own popularity, to distinguish her from Date Mizuki, but like...that's it. No one posts about what it would mean for his character, their life, it's an aesthetic decision alone. It means nothing other than the petty fan grievance or wish-fullfilment that inspired it.

That laziness is what I hate the most. Fandom is transformative, those transformations have the power to be extremely beautiful and compelling and meaningful. They can elevate the text into something more than what it was. I love that. I am a trans person who loves good art. That's why the way trans headcanons are made and portrayed is so irritating to me, because they feel low effort. People will say they have thought about them a lot, and maybe you have! But if all of that consideration is in a private discord server, that means nothing to me. I refuse to consider the merits of context I have no access to. If the context exists, put it in your work!! I just want better art than that.

Fandom wants to be taken seriously. It wants to be treated as art, and yet it also wants to be treated as just a fun hobby unworthy of criticism, but I don't think you get to have both. You cannot position your creations as art, your community as an artistic one worthy of respect, and yet its immune to the treatment all art and art communities get: criticism. I just want more thoughtful and considered fanworks. I want transcanons, even if they exist for a ship, or out of spite, or for fun aus and comedy fan-comics, to be taken just a bit more seriously and with more effort.

#hope.txt

12 notes · View notes